On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:12:49PM +0100, Matthias Waffenschmidt wrote: > Hello, > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:59:36AM +0000, Chris Lightfoot wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 11:58:19AM +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > --On 6 December 2006 11:28:34 +0000 Chris Lightfoot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > [...] > > > > is the true one. > > > >Pretence of this type obviously does not actually make the > > > >error condition a permanent one. > > > > > > No, but nothing is permanent. Eventually, we'll all die when the sun goes > > > supernova. The difference in our interpretations is in the interpretation > > > of "permanent". > > > > yes. I am using the definition in the RFC; you are making > > something up according to your preference. > > You are not.
Read the bit before the bit you quoted: | A rule of thumb to determine | whether a reply fits into the 4yz or the 5yz category (see below) | is that replies are 4yz if they can be successful if repeated | without any change in command form or in properties of the sender | or receiver (that is, the command is repeated identically and the | receiver does not put up a new implementation.) -- the point about an over-quota error is that it is reasonable to expect a retry to succeed without action by either the sender or the administrators at the remote site. (Note that ``properties of the sender or receiver'' refers to properties of the corresponding SMTP implementations in that sentence.) -- ``I have a demonstration... but we'll leave it to the end because I can't really carry on after it, as you will see.'' (Physics lecture, on nuclear weapons) -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
